jayanna Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 And you don't really have to 'down' the ethanol, they put it in an IV drip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayanna Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 I know if I was suffering from ethylene glycol poisoning (not that I'm in the habit of drinking anti-freeze) and there was no Fomeprizole and the doctor offered me ethanol I'd down it. Of course I don't have an issue with Nyquil so... *shrug*I don't think the ethanol drip would be a wow issue, but the anitfreeze would! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Now, how this comes to the word of wisdom. I have tried every avenue of help avaiable to me. Medical care is provided to me by the Veterans Administration. Through them I have access to help groups and sessions with a therapist free of charge. I have been on quite a few different medications, none much help and some with terrible side effects. Yes, I pray. Yes, I read scripture. I exercise and eat pretty healthy.Thoughts?Did you get a priesthood blessing? That is how I defeated the horror that is PTSD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 To patently say that there is no medicinal use (intended by Heavenly Father) for cannabis is tantamount to saying that, in creating all things, He either 1) made a mistake; or 2) committed an oversight--both of which are inconsistent with our concept of an omniscient and perfect Creator. Therefore it necessarily follows that He intended for us to use it for the (psychoactive) properties He gave it--and this intended use could only be medicinal, as the only alternative (for the psychoactive properties) would be recreational and contrary to His will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not everything is related directly to us. there are a lot of other things interacting on this planet and we are not the focus of them all. Or even the majority of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 So, what if my job is highly stressful and I can't sleep or relax and my Dr. prescribes a couple of shots of whiskey before bed every night. WOW problem?I'm fairly certain your being factitious yet it's not actually unreasonable.When I have a bad flu I take Nyquil to help me sleep. Nyquil is 10% Alcohol, it's not doctor prescribed and I don't think for even a minute that it is a violation of the WoW, it's not to much different than a having sip of whiskey in all honesty.Narcotics are probably more commonly abused than MJ yet I wouldn't consider someone who is taking them (narcotics) in correct dosages for the correct reasons as being in violation of the WoW. Neither would I consider someone who is not abusing MJ and is actually taking it for legitimate medicinal reasons as being in violation of the WoW. (can you tell I'm very skeptical about it being used for legitimate reasons?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Original Quote (annewandering): "Not everything is related directly to us. there are a lot of other things interacting on this planet and we are not the focus of them all. Or even the majority of them." That is certaily a true statement, but it fails to adequately address my point. Consider the fact that marijuana is the only known naturally occurring source of THC, a compound for which human beings have "receptor sites"--both in the central nervous system and in the immune system. If there were no intended use for this compound in human medicine, then God would have either made a mistake or committed an oversight--both of which are inconsistent with our concept of deity. If God intentionally made marijuana with the properties that it has (i.e. no mistake nor oversight), but at the same time there were no intended use for those properties, then one would have to argue that He included those properties in the plant so as to be a source of temptation to man; and this is also contrary to the nature of God, Who does not tempt man but only permits the adversary to do so. Edited July 24, 2012 by ElZorillo To include original quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 If there were no intended use for this compound in human medicine, then God would have either made a mistake or committed an oversight--both of which are inconsistent with our concept of deity.False dichotomy. If you're going to attempt to defend drug usage, you would do better to find a logically consistent way of doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 "False dichotomy. If you're going to attempt to defend drug usage, you would do better to find a logically consistent way of doing so." Not trying to defend drug usage--I'm trying to defend Heavenly Father's reputation for being perfect and omniscient AND for having a purpose for everything He does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Vort is right. Whatever it is you're trying to defend, doing it through a false dichotomy isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 · Hidden Hidden "False dichotomy. If you're going to attempt to defend drug usage, you would do better to find a logically consistent way of doing so."Not trying to defend drug usage--I'm trying to defend Heavenly Father's reputation for being perfect and omniscient AND for having a purpose for everything He does...And why exactly are you concluding that having a purpose means "it has a medical use?" Link to comment
genuine Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Vort is right. Whatever it is you're trying to defend, doing it through a false dichotomy isn't working.define dichotomy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 define dichotomy...Wikipedia: "A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts."A "false dichotomy" is when a whole is wrongly split into two parts, or is split into two parts that overlap, or is split into two parts that do not constitute the whole.For example, if you say "Either A or B", but another possibility is "C" that you didn't mention, you have presented a false dichotomy. "Either you are for us or you are against us" is often false; it may possible to be completely removed from a situation so that you are neither for nor against, or perhaps one can be for some aspects and against others. "You are either an angel or a devil" is another example; a great many people are neither angels nor devils, but fallible people stumbling along and making their way as best they can.ElZorillo claimed: "If there were no intended use for this compound [THC, derived from marijuana] in human medicine, then God would have either made a mistake or committed an oversight". So according to ElZorillo, if God did not intend humans to use THC/marijuana, the possibilities are:1. God made a mistake in creating THC and marijuana;2. God forgot about marijuana and accidentally didn't include it on the list of useful substances.Obviously, there are a great many more possibilities than these two. ElZorillo's argument employs a false dichotomy, and will not convince anyone except, perhaps, those who already agree with him and are therefore disposed to accept illogical argumentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sorry you guys don't get it. The "oversight" I was referring to would have been that of having included THC--which binds at receptor sites in humans--in marijuana but for no reason. Perhaps if you read my other post--number 32--and take a moment to think before shooting off you'll realize that there must necessarily be good reasons for why THC is in marijuana and for why it binds at receptor sites in humans as it does--for God does nothing without a reason. He put THC in marijuana, and He gave us the receptor sites in our central nervous systems and in our immune systems. Would you patently say that the Opium poppy is "bad" and "couldn't possibly have any medicinal use"--as you appear to be saying about marijuana. You must remember that after God made all things, He called them "good"; and we would be well advised not to call something "bad" that He has called "good". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 How about spend a little less time defining words and a little more thinking things through carefully. You might want to ask a couple of LDS physicians--I would recommend an oncologist...or how about a bishop or stake president who is also a medical doctor. I believe you will find plenty throughout California and Michigan who are just fine with the concept of medicinal marijuana. I can give you referrals if you like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sorry you guys don't get it. The "oversight" I was referring to would have been that of having included THC--which binds at receptor sites in humans--in marijuana but for no reason. Perhaps if you read my other post--number 32--and take a moment to think before shooting off you'll realize that there must necessarily be good reasons for why THC is in marijuana and for why it binds at receptor sites in humans as it does--for God does nothing without a reason. He put THC in marijuana, and He gave us the receptor sites in our central nervous systems and in our immune systems. Would you patently say that the Opium poppy is "bad" and "couldn't possibly have any medicinal use"--as you appear to be saying about marijuana. You must remember that after God made all things, He called them "good"; and we would be well advised not to call something "bad" that He has called "good".How in the flying festivity of flickering flies do you know that it is "good" for humans, it's entirely within reason (following your line of logic) that God thought it was a very pretty leaf, or that it's great food for a specific caterpillar. It does not "have" to be good for consumption in any way by human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElZorillo Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Jerome--you missed the part where I said to think it through before shooting off...again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Jerome--you missed the part where I said to think it through before shooting off...again!You have yet to address the illogic of your false dichotomy, ElZorillo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 · Hidden Hidden Would you patently say that the Opium poppy is "bad" and "couldn't possibly have any medicinal use"--as you appear to be saying about marijuana.When who says that? I don't see a single mention of the opium poppy in this thread prior to your mention, though it's possible I missed it. Can I get either a post number or a quote? Link to comment
ElZorillo Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Well, there is no false dichotomy, but you need to think before you respond. Point #1: Marijuana (like Opium) has chemical compounds that bind to receptor sites (CB1 in the central nervous system, CB2 in the immune system) and are active there. Point #2: Humans are endowed with receptor sites to which only one naturally occurring compound binds, and that compound occurs naturally in cannabis. Point #3: there is an express and good purpose underlying everything Heavenly Father does. Point #4: God does not tempt man, but only allows the adversary to do so. Therefore, His purpose for making a component of marijuana to be active in humans can not have been to tempt us nor to have provided the adversary with a tool with which to tempt us. Since God does not tempt us, and since He has forbidden the recreational use of marijuana, it follows that His intended use by man of that component of marijuana that is active in man must be medicinal in nature. If the fact that THC is psychoactive in man were purely coincidental (and unintentional from God's perspective) then He would have committed the oversight to which I first referred, or at the very least He would be something less than omniscient. Since He is both perfect and omniscient, the dichotomy is not false in the first place. Alas, this discussion is academic in nature until He clarifies this position through a prophet. In the meantime I will ponder it further in the celestial room--and I will be medicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 To patently say that there is no medicinal use (intended by Heavenly Father) for cannabis is tantamount to saying that, in creating all things, He either 1) made a mistake; or 2) committed an oversight--both of which are inconsistent with our concept of an omniscient and perfect Creator. Therefore it necessarily follows that He intended for us to use it for the (psychoactive) properties He gave it--and this intended use could only be medicinal, as the only alternative (for the psychoactive properties) would be recreational and contrary to His will.Can I point out that saying that simply because something exists, it must have a medicinal use or God is imperfect is the very false dichotomy everyone is pointing out?Let's take another example."I like to huff natural gas.""That's bad for you and against the word of wisdom.""Are you suggesting God would make something that has no medicinal value?""Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.""So your God is imperfect or lacks foresight to know that I would huff natural gas?""No. And that's a terrible argument.""But natural gas bonds with oxygen carriers in the body. Why would God make it if He didn't intend you to get high off of the fumes?""You realize how stupid this argument is, right?""I'm going to keep huffing natural gas.""Ask your bishop if it's okay. If he says it's okay, it is. If it isn't, it isn't.""I'm going to the temple tonight to pray and ask if it's okay and I'm going to be high as a kiiiiiiiiiiite.""..."Ask your Bishop. See what he thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 · Hidden Hidden Well, there is no false dichotomy, but you need to think before you respond. Link to comment
ElZorillo Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Ask your Bishop. See what he thinks. Great idea...I have, and he agrees. But I must say that your use of logic to make a point is truly remarkable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Ask your Bishop. See what he thinks. Great idea...I have, and he agrees. But I must say that your use of logic to make a point is truly remarkable...It is quite a contrast to your attempts which have so far avoided using logic, at least of the non-fallacious variety, so far. Edited July 25, 2012 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 The non use of the quote function is confusing me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.